Rekayasa Perkerasan Jalan 2

Tugas 1

Dosen Pengampu :
Asep Sundara, BSCE, MT.

Disusun oleh
Anya Athalia Rahmizain Wardana
201134002
3-TPJJ

PROGRAM STUDI D-4 TEKNIK PERANCANGAN JALAN DAN

JEMBATAN
POLITEKNIK NEGERI BANDUNG
2022/2023
 LENGKAPI DATA
DATA JALAN DATA LALU LINTAS LHR
NAMA RUAS JALAN : H0MEWORK - Kendaraan Ringan 2,0 ton : 1.086
NO. LINK : 2
PANJANG JALAN (KM) : 100 - Pic-up, Combi 4,0 ton : 495
STA / KM : KM.BDG 00 + 00 S/D 100 + 00
NAMA WILAYAH BPJ : BANDUNG - Truck 2 as (L) 8,3 ton : 73
KABUPATEN : KAB. BANDUNG BARAT

STATUS JALAN : 2 - Bus kecil 9,0 ton : 254

FUNGSI JALAN : 1 - Bus Besar 13,2 ton : 85

DISAIN JENIS PERKERASAN : 2 - Truck 2 as (H) 18,2 ton : 97

PROGRAM : 1 - Truk 3 as 25,0 ton : 85

DATA SURVAI LAPANGAN
NILAI CBR LAPANGAN (% ) : 3,58 - Truk 4 as 31,4 ton : 98
KELANDAIAN (% ) : 1
CURAH HUJAN (mm/tahun) : 1 - Trailer 1.2 - 2 26,2 ton 9

DATA PERENCANAAN - Trailer 1.2 - 22 42,0 ton 8

UMUR RENCANA (TAHUN ) : 15 UNTUK PROGRAM PENINGKATAN ATAU REHAB
PERTUMBUHAN LALU LINTAS ( % ) : 4 ISI DATA PERKERASAN JALAN EXISTING

JUMLAH ARAH / JALUR RENCANA : 2 HOTMIX LAMA cm :

JUMLAH LAJUR RENCANA : 2 PENETRASI LAMA cm :

DATA LALU LINTAS TAHUN : 2022 PONDASI AGREGAT cm :

JALAN DIFUNGSIKAN TAHUN : 2022 PONDASI BATU BELAH cm :

TANGGAL PERENCANAAN : 07 AGUSTUS 2022
 PEMERINTAH PROVINSI JAWA BARAT

SUB DINAS BINA TEKNIK

NAMA RUAS JALAN : H0MEWORK
NO. LINK : 2
PANJANG JALAN TOTAL : 100 km
STASION : KM.BDG 00 + 00 S/D 100 + 00
KABUPATEN : KAB. BANDUNG BARAT
NAMA WILAYAH BPJ : BANDUNG
PROGRAM : PEMBANGUNAN JALAN BARU
TGL/BLN/TAHUN : 07 AGUSTUS 2022

PERHITUNGAN TEBAL PERKERASAN RIGID/KAKU

A. PARAMETER DESAIN

1. - Umur Rencana (n) : 15 tahun

- Fungsi jalan : Kolektor
- Status jalan : Provinsi
2. CBR tanah dasar : 3,6 %
3. Data lalu lintas tahun 2022
Pertumbuhan
Jenis Kendaraan Jumlah Kendaraan Lalu lintas ( i )
(%)
- Kendaraan Ringan 2,0 ton 1.086 4
- Pic-up, Combi 4,0 ton 495 4
- Truck 2 as (L) 8,3 ton 73 4
- Bus kecil 9,0 ton 254 4
- Bus Besar 13,2 ton 85 4
- Truck 2 as (H) 18,2 ton 97 4
- Truk 3 as 25,0 ton 85 4
- Truk 4 as 31,4 ton 98 4
- Trailer 1.2 - 2 26,2 ton 9 4
- Trailer 1.2 - 22 42,0 ton 8 4
4. Jalan dibuka atau difungsikan pada tahun 2022
Waktu untuk perhitungan awal umur rencana k = 2.022 - 2.022 = -

5. Jalur & Koefisien distribusi kendaraan ( C )

- Jumlah arah/jalur : 2,00
- Jumlah lajur : 2,00
- Koefisien distribusi ( C ), kendaraan ringan : 0,50
- Koefisien distribusi ( C ), kendaraan berat : 0,50

B. PERHITUNGAN LALU LINTAS HARIAN RATA-RATA PADA AWAL UMUR RENCANA (LHRp)

k
- Kendaraan ringan 2,0 ton = 1.086,00 x ( 1+ i) = 1.086,00 kendaraan
- Pic-up, Combi 4,0 ton = 495,22 x ( 1+ i )k = 495,00 kendaraan
- Truck 2 as (L), Micro truck 8,3 ton = 72,76 x ( 1+ i )k = 73,00 kendaraan
- Bus kecil 9,0 ton = 254,12 x ( 1+ i )k = 254,00 kendaraan
- Bus Besar 13,2 ton = 84,71 x ( 1+ i )k = 85,00 kendaraan
- Truck 2 as (H) 18,2 ton = 96,65 x ( 1+ i )k = 97,00 kendaraan
- Truk 3 as 25,0 ton = 84,71 x ( 1+ i )k = 85,00 kendaraan
- Truk 4 as 31,4 ton = 97,74 x ( 1+ i )k = 98,00 kendaraan
- Trailer 1.2 - 2 26,2 ton = 8,69 x ( 1+ i )k = 9,00 kendaraan
- Trailer 1.2 - 22 42,0 ton = 7,60 x ( 1+ i )k = 8,00 kendaraan
LHRp ( kendaraan/hari/4 jalur ) = 2.290,00 kendaraan
D. PERHITUNGAN LALU LINTAS HARIAN RATA-RATA PADA AKHIR UMUR RENCANA ( LHRa )
- Kendaraan ringan 2,0 ton = 1.086,00 x ( 1 + i )n = 1.956,00 kendaraan
- Pic-up, Combi 4,0 ton = 495,00 x ( 1 + i )n = 891,00 kendaraan
- Truck 2 as (L), Micro truck 8,3 ton = 73,00 x ( 1 + i )n = 131,00 kendaraan
- Bus kecil 9,0 ton = 254,00 x ( 1 + i )n = 457,00 kendaraan
n
- Bus Besar 13,2 ton = 85,00 x ( 1 + i ) = 153,00 kendaraan
- Truck 2 as (H) 18,2 ton = 97,00 x ( 1 + i )n = 175,00 kendaraan
- Truk 3 as 25,0 ton = 85,00 x ( 1 + i )n = 153,00 kendaraan
- Truk 4 as 31,4 ton = 98,00 x ( 1 + i )n = 176,00 kendaraan
- Trailer 1.2 - 2 26,2 ton = 9,00 x ( 1 + i )n = 16,00 kendaraan
n
- Trailer 1.2 - 22 42,0 ton = 8,00 x ( 1 + i ) = 14,00 kendaraan
LHRa10( kendaraan/hari/4 jalaur ) = 4.122,00 kendaraan

E. ANGKA EKIVALEN BEBAN SUMBU KENDARAAN ( E )

Berat Roda
Jenis Kendaraan Satuan Nilai E
Maksimal Depan Belakang
- Kendaraan ringan 2,0 ton = 0,0002 + 0,0002 = 0,0004
- Pic-up, Combi 4,0 ton = 0,0007 + 0,0110 = 0,0117
- Truck 2 as (L), Micro truck 8,3 ton = 0,0143 + 0,2031 = 0,2174
- Bus kecil 9,0 ton = 0,0197 + 0,2808 = 0,3005
- Bus Besar 13,2 ton = 0,0915 + 1,2993 = 1,3908
- Truck 2 as (H) 18,2 ton = 0,3307 + 4,6957 = 5,0264
- Truk 3 as 25,0 ton = 0,3441 + 2,3975 = 2,7416
- Truk 4 as ( truck gandeng) 31,4 ton = 0,2301 + 4,6982 = 4,9283
- Trailer 1.2 - 2 26,2 ton = 0,1115 + 6,0064 = 6,1179
- Trailer 1.2 - 22 42,0 ton = 0,7367 + 9,4462 = 10,1829

F. PERHITUNGAN LINTAS EKIVALEN PERMULAAN ( LEP ) = C x LHRp x E

- Kendaraan ringan 2,0 ton = 0,50 x 1.086,00 x 0,0004 = 0,22
- Pic-up, Combi 4,0 ton = 0,50 x 495,00 x 0,0117 = 2,88
- Truck 2 as (L), Micro truck 8,3 ton = 0,50 x 73,00 x 0,2174 = 7,94
- Bus kecil 9,0 ton = 0,50 x 254,00 x 0,3005 = 38,16
- Bus Besar 13,2 ton = 0,50 x 85,00 x 1,3908 = 59,11
- Truck 2 as (H) 18,2 ton = 0,50 x 97,00 x 5,0264 = 243,78
- Truk 3 as 25,0 ton = 0,50 x 85,00 x 2,7416 = 116,52
- Truk 4 as ( truck gandeng) 31,4 ton = 0,50 x 98,00 x 4,9283 = 241,49
- Trailer 1.2 - 2 26,2 ton = 0,50 x 9,00 x 6,1179 = 27,53
- Trailer 1.2 - 22 42,0 ton = 0,50 x 8,00 x 10,1829 = 40,73
LEP = 778,36

H. PERHITUNGAN LINTAS EKIVALEN AKHIR ( LEA ) = C x LHRa10 x E

- Kendaraan ringan 2,0 ton = 0,50 x 1.956,000 x 0,0004 = 0,39
- Pic-up, Combi 4,0 ton = 0,50 x 891,000 x 0,0117 = 5,19
- Truck 2 as (L), Micro truck 8,3 ton = 0,50 x 131,000 x 0,2174 = 14,24
- Bus kecil 9,0 ton = 0,50 x 457,000 x 0,3005 = 68,66
- Bus Besar 13,2 ton = 0,50 x 153,000 x 1,3908 = 106,40
- Truck 2 as (H) 18,2 ton = 0,50 x 175,000 x 5,0264 = 439,81
- Truk 3 as 25,0 ton = 0,50 x 153,000 x 2,7416 = 209,74
- Truk 4 as ( truck gandeng) 31,4 ton = 0,50 x 176,000 x 4,9283 = 433,69
- Trailer 1.2 - 2 26,2 ton = 0,50 x 16,000 x 6,1179 = 48,94
- Trailer 1.2 - 22 42,0 ton = 0,50 x 14,000 x 10,1829 = 71,28
LEA 10 = 1.398,34

n
BEBAN SUMBU KENDARAAN : ESA (KUMULATIF) = 365 x LEP x {(1 + i) -1}/Ln(1+i) 5.801.754,44
I. PERHITUNGAN TEBAL PLAT BETON

SIMBOL
NO DATA ITEM NILAI UNIT KETERANGAN

Input Data :
1 Umur Rencana 15 tahun
2 Lajur Rencana 2 lajur
3 Jumlah jalur 2 jalur
4 Nilai ESA harian saat lalu lintas dibuka (EALo) ( EALo) 778 sumbu tahun 2022

5 Tingkat pertumbuhan lalu lintas i 4%

BEBAN KENDARAAN KUMULAITIF

6 W18 5.801.754
( ESAL )

7 Log10(W18 ) 6,760
8 Reliabilitas % R 90 Arteri = 90, Kolektor = 85 dan Lokal = 65
9 Simpangbaku gabungan tingkat kegagalan So 0,35 0,3....0,4 untuk Perkerasan Kaku
10 Simpangbaku standar normal Zr -1,282
11 Indeks Permukaan Awal Po 4,5
12 Indeks Permukaan Akhir Pt 2,5
13 Penurunan kinerja perkerasan D PSI = Pt - Po 2
14 Kuat tekan beton kg/cm2 K 350
15 Konversi kuat tekan beton psi fc' 4.977 fc ' = K x 14.22 psi (Mutu Beton K-350 )
16 Modulus elastisitas beton psi Ec 4.021.228 Ec = 57000 x ( fc' )0,5

17 Flexural strength of concrete psi Sc' 663 Sc'= 43,5 x Ec / 106 + 488,5
18 Koefisien penyaluran beban J 3,2

19 Koefisien drainse lapisan Cd 0,90 Baik = 1.3, Cukup =0.9, Jelek = 0.5

Lapis pondasi CBR1 80,00 h1 = 25,00 cm

20 CBR Gabungan CBRGab 11,01 CBR(Gab) =[ {h1 x CBR1(1/3)+(100-h1) x CBR2(1/3)} /100 ]3

Tanah dasar / Existing CBR2 3,58 ( 100 - h1 ) = 75 cm

21 Modulus Resilien (psi) psi MR1 16.521,50 MR = 1500 x CBR

22 Modulus efektif reaksi lapis pondasi pci k1 851,62 k = MR/19.4
23 Modulus reaksi tanah dasar pci k2 12,00

Data Hasil Akhir:

inc. cm

24 Tebal pelat D= 8,35 21 cm BETON K-350

25 Beban Lalu lintas Terjadi Log10( W18 ) 6,76 7 cm LC (BETON K-150)

26 Beban Lalu lintas Diperlukan Log 10( W18 ) 6,76 25 cm Lapis Pondasi

` Tanah Dasar
RUMUS DASAR
Log 10 (W18) = Z r x S o + 7.35 x log 10 (D+1) - 0.06 + [{log 10 ( D PSI/(4.5 - 1.5))}/{1+ (1.624 x 10 )/(D + 1)
7 8.46
}]

+ (4.22 - 0.32 x Pt ) x log 10 [{S c ' x C d x (D 0.75 - 1.132)}/{215.63 x J x (D 0.75 - (18.42/(E c /k) 0.25 )}]

PCI KG/CM3 PSI KG/CM2 Ec = 57.000(fc^0.5) psi

36,13 1 14,22 1
216,8 6 4.978 350 4.021.702
1.422 100 2.149.690
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291374381

State Design Procedure for Rigid Pavements Based on the AASHTO Mechanistic–
Empirical Pavement Design Guide

Article  in  Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · January 2015
DOI: 10.3141/2524-03

CITATIONS READS

5 2,986

3 authors, including:

Luke Johanneck Lev Khazanovich

Minnesota Department of Transportation, Bemidji, United States University of Pittsburgh
7 PUBLICATIONS   62 CITATIONS    159 PUBLICATIONS   1,665 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lev Khazanovich on 19 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Part 2

Rigid Pavement Design

State Design Procedure for Rigid
Pavements Based on the AASHTO
Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement
Design Guide
Derek Tompkins, Luke Johanneck, and Lev Khazanovich
This paper describes research efforts sponsored by the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Transportation (DOT) to update its rigid design procedure to
take advantage of locally calibrated mechanistic–empirical models for
performance and consequently design. The new procedure, MnPCC-ME,
is based on the AASHTO Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide
(MEPDG) Version 1.1, but restricts the user to predetermined design
input parameters. MnPCC-ME matches the MEPDG predicted perfor-
mance at a fraction of the computation cost. The user is able to modify
key design inputs for state and local pavement projects; the parameters
include district climate files and traffic load spectra files (based on his-
torical Minnesota DOT weigh-in-motion data). In addition, MnPCC-ME
provides alternative reliability analysis, which is based on a Monte Carlo
simulation of pavement performance predictions based on typical vari-
ability in slab thickness and flexural strength for Minnesota pavements.
The MnPCC-ME program requires virtually no run time and outputs
a project report with the recommended design thickness for given per-
formance criteria and reliability level for the specified reliability analy-
sis. Although this tool was developed for Minnesota local conditions, the
approach developed in the study can be adopted by other transportation
agencies for their region and conditions.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (DOT) recently decided
to update its design procedure for rigid pavements. The Minnesota
DOT had previously used its RIGIDPAVE software as the basis for
jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) design for projects in Min-
nesota. This software used a design procedure based on the AASHTO
1993 procedure for rigid pavements, informally referred to here as
AASHTO93 (1). As noted by the pavement research community—
and observed empirically in the longevity of the JPCP at the Min-
nesota Road Research Project (MnROAD)—AASHTO93 is a purely
empirical and generally conservative design procedure (2, 3).
The Minnesota DOT also desired a rigid companion to its estab-
lished flexible pavement design procedure, MnPAVE (4). MnPAVE
has been widely adopted in Minnesota and provides users with a
contemporary mechanistic–empirical (M-E) design for flexible
D. Tompkins and L. Khazanovich, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Minnesota, 500 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455. L. Johanneck, Office
of Materials, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Mailstop 645, 1400
Gervais Avenue, Maplewood, MN 55109. Corresponding author: D. Tompkins,
tompk019@umn.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2524, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 23–32.
DOI: 10.3141/2524-03
23
pavements, whereas RIGIDPAVE does not offer the same for rigid
pavements. This difference in state pavement design tools compli-
cated alternative bids for a given paving project. Thus, the Minnesota
DOT sought to replace RIGIDPAVE with an M-E procedure.
One alternative for the Minnesota DOT was to adopt the AASHTO
M-E procedure and its companion software [such as the Mechanistic–
Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG), DARWin-ME, or
Pavement ME Design]. However, the Minnesota DOT hesitated to
adopt the AASHTO procedure fully for use by state and local engi-
neers because of concerns about the extent of design parameters in
the AASHTO design procedure. The vast number of parameters to be
varied can be intimidating to an engineer looking for a first estimate
design tool, such as one provided by RIGIDPAVE. Hence, the intent of
the Minnesota DOT was not to replace the AASHTO M-E procedure,
but rather to provide a simplified M-E design alternative to state and
local engineers that was fully compatible with the AASHTO M-E pro-
cedure. However, for engineers wishing to address more sophisticated
projects with advanced design inputs, the Minnesota DOT would then
apply the AASHTO M-E procedure to those projects.
The development of a new design procedure for Minnesota rigid
pavements was guided by four main objectives from the Minnesota
DOT:
1. M-E Design. The replacement procedure should be based on
Version 1.1 of the AASHTO MEPDG (5).
2. Limited design parameters. Design input parameters should
be distilled to the most influential and relevant to pavement design.
3. Localization. The developed procedure should take advantage
of local climate data files and local weigh-in-motion (WIM) data.
Localization efforts were one reason that MEPDG was used instead
of other AASHTO M-E design programs, as the Minnesota DOT
had previously conducted calibrations of MEPDG with Minnesota
JPCP data (6, 7).
4. Accessible software. The developed procedure should be easy
to use and should be implemented in software that can be easily
distributed and maintained by the Minnesota DOT.
In addition to these official objectives, the Minnesota DOT desired
that the developed procedure include reliability analysis for JPCP
that accounted for variation in thickness and modulus of rupture (in a
manner similar to the reliability analysis implemented in MnPAVE).
The end product of the research guided by these objectives was a sim-
plified pavement design table for Minnesota rigid pavements known
as MnPCC-ME. The following sections will detail the development
of MnPCC-ME in relation to the above objectives.
24 Transportation Research Record 2524

Determining Design Input and rently specify the coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete, that
Performance Output Parameters input was fixed as well. Minnesota DOT selected all assumed design
input values for the pavement cross section shared by all JPCP projects.
For a given paving project, it is not feasible to expect a local pavement The inputs for MEPDG design features follow:
engineer to have access to the design inputs required by the AASHTO
M-E design procedure. The MEPDG and subsequent versions of the • Curl–warp effective temperature difference: −10,
AASHTO M-E software acknowledge this issue by creating default • Sealant type: liquid,
parameters. Under this project, the Minnesota DOT decided to evalu- • Joint design:
ate these inputs and fix them to a specific value that cannot be changed – Dowel diameter: 1, 1.25, or 1.5 (in.) (Minnesota DOT
by users of the procedure. The Minnesota DOT selected inputs accord- specifications) and
ing to the consensus of state and local engineers and their experience – Dowel spacing: 12 (in.), and
with local materials, practices, and so on. Other parameters were fixed • Base properties:
on the basis of three rounds of sensitivity analyses, which comprised – Erodibility index: erosion resistant (3),
more than 20,000 MEPDG project runs. This analysis was designed to – PCC–base interface: full friction contact, and
assist the Minnesota DOT in selecting design parameters that were – Loss of friction: 360.
(a) important to Minnesota pavement engineers and (b) influential in
the M-E performance models. The following sections summarize the The inputs for MEPDG structure, Layer 1 (JPCP) inputs follow:
final parameters to be varied and the shared parameter values for all
projects (i.e., inputs that were held constant for all projects). • PCC general:
– Unit weight: 150 (lb/ft3) and
– Poisson’s ration: 0.2,
Final Design Inputs for • PCC thermal:
Minnesota DOT JPCP Design – Coefficient of thermal expansion: 5,
– Thermal conductivity: 1.25 (Btu/ft • h • °F), and
After several rounds of sensitivity analysis and internal discussions, – Heat capacity: 0.28 (Btu/lb • °F), and
the Minnesota DOT selected the following parameters, with associated • PCC mix:
values, as inputs to be varied by the user of the design software: – Cement content: 500 (lb/yd3) and
– Water–cement ratio: 0.40, and
• Climate. Varies by Minnesota DOT district; • Aggregate: limestone.
• Traffic. Varies by volume, expressed in heavy commercial annual
daily trucks; by linear yearly growth rate; and by localized axle load The inputs for Layers 2, 3, and 4 are summarized in Table 1.
spectra (described in the appropriate section below);
• Joint spacing. 12 or 15 ft;
• Outer lane width. 12 or 13 ft; and Performance Criteria
• Shoulder load transfer efficiency (LTE). 10% (unbound or AC The MEPDG expresses JPCP performance in three areas: faulting,
shoulder) and 40% (paved shoulder). transverse cracking, and roughness [international roughness index
(IRI)]. The Minnesota DOT determined that, as newly constructed
In addition, Minnesota DOT specified that special inputs be available JPCP in Minnesota will always be doweled with a dowel diameter
to be varied only by authorized users (each of which will be discussed not less than 1 in. and one-eighth of the PCC thickness, there was no
in subsequent sections of this paper): need to assess faulting for the design software. This decision effec-
tively isolated transverse cracking as the controlling distress for the
• Percentage of trucks in design lane, database given that IRI depends mostly on faulting. In addition, the
• Portland cement concrete (PCC) modulus of rupture, Minnesota DOT later established transverse cracking criteria based
• Calibration coefficients for MEPDG JPCP transverse cracking on project location and anticipated traffic volume. These criteria,
model, described in Table 2, follow recommendations from AASHTO and the
• Reliability method to be used (either MEPDG default or a Monte MEPDG developers to vary cracking and reliability according to traf-
Carlo simulation), fic volume, the rationale being that higher-volume roadways should
• Reliability level, and be subject to more stringent design criteria (8, 9). The total vehicles
• Coefficients of variation (CVs) in PCC modulus of rupture and
PCC thickness.
TABLE 1   MEPDG Structure for Base, Subbase,
and Subgrade Layers
There are design and computing assumptions in the selection of these
parameters and their associated values. For instance, joint spacing Strength Properties, Level 3
could have included the intermediate values 13 ft and 14 ft. However,
as noted previously, a guiding concern for the project was to simplify Layer Material Thickness (in.) Poisson’s Ko Modulus
the design process by selecting key, influential design parameters and
2. Basea A-1-a 4 0.35 0.5 35,640
limiting those parameters to values selected by the Minnesota DOT.
3. Subbaseb A-3 12 0.35 0.5 18,350
Other values that were more difficult to estimate, such as the effective
4. Subgrade A-6 Semi-infinite 0.35 0.5 14,000
load transfer on the shoulder edge for a paved or unpaved shoulder,
were assumed by the Minnesota DOT according to recommendations a
Values estimate Class 5; modulus from lab tests.
from the research team. Likewise, as the Minnesota DOT does not cur- b
Values estimate select granular modulus from lab test.
Tompkins, Johanneck, and Khazanovich 25

TABLE 2   Final Performance Criteria Selected by Technical TABLE 3   Climate Locations and
Advisory Panel for Design Software Files with Associated Minnesota
DOT Districts
District
District Location and Climate File
Metro (Minneapolis–
Saint Paul) All Other 1 Hibbing, Minn.
2 Grand Forks, N. Dak.
Total Vehicles Over Reliability Cracking Reliability Cracking
Service Life (%) (%) (%) (%) 3 Brainerd, Minn.
4 Alexandria, Minn.
≤6.5 million 75 6.5 50 15 Metro Minneapolis–Saint Paul
6.5 million to 13 million 90 6.5 75 15 International Airport
≥13 million 97.5 6.5 90 15 6 Rochester, Minn.
7 Redwood Falls, Minn.
8 Redwood Falls, Minn.
over service life are calculated by the design software with the traffic
volume, linear growth, and design life. As with other important inputs, Note: Minn. = Minnesota; N. Dak. =
North Dakota.
the Minnesota DOT allows performance and reliability criteria to be
modified only by authorized users.
file performed markedly better than identical projects located in
nonmetro locations. While there are a number of hypotheses that
Incorporating Local Climate, could explain this behavior (e.g., “island effect” climate condi-
Traffic, and MEPDG Calibration tions), the research team apprised the Minnesota DOT of this
Data Into the Procedure observation to inform the design software. The result was the
development of specific performance criteria in the design soft-
One feature of the Minnesota DOT’s previous rigid design procedure ware based on metro and nonmetro project location, as detailed
that it wanted to retain in updating its rigid design procedure was the earlier in this paper.
fact that RIGIDPAVE was calibrated by using Minnesota pavement
data. This so-called localization was desired for the developed M-E
procedure. This effort focused on the use of (a) available Minnesota Traffic Inputs and Development of Traffic Load
climate data, (b) WIM data collected by the Minnesota DOT Traffic Spectra Files with State WIM Data
Office, and (c) previous calibrations of the MEPDG conducted by
Minnesota DOT. The Minnesota DOT determined that traffic would be character-
ized by the engineering with two main parameters: the volume of
heavy commercial average daily truck traffic and the linear growth
Climate Inputs Using Hourly Climate Data rate over the input design life of the project. One major assumption
Files for State Districts concerning traffic volume is that the software assumes that 100% of
trucks are in the design lane.
As with other parameters, after several rounds of sensitivity analysis, The Minnesota DOT also desired that state WIM data be used
the Minnesota DOT determined that the design software should rep- by the design procedure. The process to use WIM data, while not
resent each Minnesota DOT district individually, so that users could complicated, was laborious given the amount of traffic data and the
easily represent the environmental conditions for a given project. procedure needed to use WIM data to create inputs for the MEPDG.
The Minnesota DOT provided climate data for Minnesota locations The research team developed a step-by-step procedure to use this
in the form of associated hourly climate data files that had been used WIM data and reported this process to other state DOTs at other
successfully for Minnesota DOT simulations using DARWin-ME. In conferences (10). The end result of this process was three axle load
instances in which these files were erroneous, they were scanned and spectra inputs for the MEPDG:
rebuilt by replacing missing values with interpolated data, including
any missing lines. The completed hourly climate data files were • Default axle load spectra used by MEPDG Version 1.1,
used to create enhanced integrated climate model files for each dis- • Axle load spectra that average 12 months of axle load spectra
trict. All districts were associated with a unique integrated climate for nine Minnesota DOT WIM stations, and
model file except District 7, which shares the Redwood Falls, Min- • Axle load spectra that average 12 months of axle load spec-
nesota, climate file with District 8. The locations and climate files tra for the two Minnesota DOT WIM stations that experienced the
used to represent each district are described in Table 3. In all cases, heaviest axle loads.
districts are associated with the best available climate file to repre-
sent the district. District 7 is not the only case of this approach; as The incorporation of axle load spectra into the design software pro-
a quality hourly climate data file to represent a location inside Dis- vided additional sophistication to the M-E design available to state
trict 2 could not be located, the Minnesota DOT determined that the and local engineers. However, that sophistication includes the dan-
use of data from a climate station near Grand Forks, North Dakota, ger of engineers selecting an inappropriate load spectra for a given
was an acceptable substitute. project. To help inform state and local users on the use of local load
Finally, in all analyses conducted on MEPDG sensitivity to Minne- spectra, the software user guide includes guidelines on estimating
sota climate, one fact became immediately clear: projects located the required axle load spectra given a typical Minnesota DOT traffic
in the metro area that used the Minneapolis–Saint Paul climate report for a project location.
26 Transportation Research Record 2524

Accounting for Previous Minnesota DOT section, which details the use of damage, as opposed to cracking, as the
Calibrations of MEPDG main result of the MEPDG JPCP project database.

Given that the design software does the cracking calculation directly
with available damage information from the database of MEPDG MEPDG Database of Relevant
JPCP projects, the software is able to accommodate the use of non- Minnesota JPCP Projects
default JPCP transverse cracking model coefficients, where the JPCP
transverse cracking model is expressed in the MEPDG A Manual of The research team generated MEPDG JPCP projects to simulate the
Practice as (8) performance of Minnesota pavements with the MEPDG software.
The following sections detail the process of generating MEPDG
1 project files and obtaining the performance of these projects, which
CRK = (1)
C 4 + FDC 5 were collected into a database to be accessed by the developed M-E
rigid design procedure.
where
C4 and C5 = calibration constants (with AASHTO default values
of 1.0 and −1.98, respectively), Development and Verification
CRK = percentage of slabs cracked in bottom-up and top- of JPCP Project Files
down transverse cracking, and
FD = slab bottom-up and top-down fatigue damage, as The research team created a factorial of 10,920 MEPDG proj-
calculated with Equations 2 and 3: ects representing JPCP in Minnesota. The total number of proj-
ects was determined by multiplying the variables to be modified
ni, j,k,l,m,n
FD = ∑ (2) (Equation Box 1).
N i, j,k,l,m,n Thirteen levels—in half-inch increments from 6 to 12 in.—were
used for PCC thickness. Five levels—in increments of 125 psi from
C2
 MR i  340 to 840 psi—were used for modulus of rupture. These values for
log ( N i, j,k,l,m,n ) = C1 i  (3)
 σ i, j,k,l,m,n  the thickness and modulus of rupture were used to later accommo-
date the tricubic interpolation in the damage calculation. The assumed
where values (which are arbitrary) for this project are a traffic volume of
2,000 average annual daily trucks during a 20-year design life with
Ni,j,k,l,m,n = allowable number of load applications given conditions no traffic growth. Each project was assumed to have the same design
i, j, k, l, m, and n; life and traffic.
ni,j,k,l,m,n = applied number of load applications at conditions i, j, The varied inputs and shared inputs in total formed the basis of all
k, l, m, and n; MEPDG project files. Once the project file was created and verified,
MRi = PCC modulus of rupture at age i [pounds per square it was run through the MEPDG software. To facilitate the execution
inch (psi)]; of a large number of projects, the research team created a visual macro
σi,j,k,l,m,n = applied critical stress at conditions i, j, k, l, m, and n; to automate the process of project file creation and execution. The
C1 = calibration constant (AASHTO default value of 2.0); output results were validated to ensure integrity.
C2 = calibration constant (AASHTO default value of 1.22);
i = age;
j = month;
Minnesota JPCP Database
k = axle type (single, tandem, or tridem);
of Project Damage Results
l = load level;
m = temperature difference; and Given that transverse cracking is the controlling distress for the design
n = traffic path. procedure, top-down and bottom-up damage results are gathered
One of many reasons that the Minnesota DOT selected MEPDG from each project output file and stored on a line-by-line basis in a
to serve as the basis for the database was that the local crack- comma-separated value (CSV) file. The complete CSV file represents
ing coefficients developed in previous Minnesota DOT calibration the final database. One important aspect of the developed CSV data-
studies could be applied to the projects in the database. For that base file is that while it is large, it is standard format that can be easily
reason, the local calibration coefficients C4 and C5 for Minnesota have accessed to review or modify. In addition, should the Minnesota DOT
values of 0.9 and −2.64, respectively (6, 7). More detail on the cracking determine that more projects are required, the CSV file can easily be
performance and the database of JPCP projects can be found in the next amended by appending additional lines into the database file.

EQUATION BOX 1   Factorial of MEPDG to Represent Minnesota JPCP

7 × 3 × 2 × 13 × 5 × 2 × 2 = 10,920
climate axle outer PCC flexural panel shoulder total
load lane thickness strength length LTE projects
spectra width
Tompkins, Johanneck, and Khazanovich
Boom-Up Damage Factor
PCC Thickness (in.)
FIGURE 1   Comparison of bottom-up damage for MEPDG projects and MnPCC-ME interpolated bottom-up damage
for a given set of projects.
Procedure Damage Calculation
Given the complexity of the fatigue damage and JPCP transverse
cracking models, the use of cracking to quantify the performance
of a given M-E design, relative to traffic levels, is far more indirect
a measure than using top-down or bottom-up damage. Given that
damage scales linearly with traffic, the design software can scale
damage accordingly for any level of traffic volume, growth, and
design life through the use of a bicubic interpolation for damage
based on the results of the database of MEPDG JPCP Minnesota
projects.
As the MnPCC-ME damage calculation has the MEPDG JPCP
project result database as its basis, damage and cracking results for
a given MnPCC-ME project are identical to those calculated for the
corresponding MEPDG project. This concept is illustrated in Figure 1,
in which the bottom-up damage results represent the response of
MEPDG projects (in half-inch increments of PCC thickness) for a
Minnesota District 1 pavement with 15-ft joint spacing, 12-ft outer
lane width, flexural strength of 465 psi, and an unpaved shoulder. All
other values for the project assume the MnPCC-ME defaults indicated
in Tables 1 to 5.
Given the calculated total damage, the software converts the dam-
age to transverse cracking for the 50% reliability level with use of the
MEPDG JPCP transverse cracking model (Equation 1). The use of
damage results and the calculation of transverse cracking, then, is the
reason the developed software can incorporate other sophisticated
features, including the following:
• As the software uses the JPCP transverse cracking equations
directly, it is able to accommodate user-provided calibration coef-
ficients different from those used in the MEPDG simulations used
to build the database.
27
• As the software calculates the cracking itself and does not rely
on MEPDG reporting, it is able to accommodate reliability methods
beyond the MEPDG default.
• As the software accommodates a full spectrum of traffic vol-
umes, growth rates, and design lives, the calculated total traffic can
be used to inform the project performance criteria.
An additional advantage of the use of damage and damage scaling is that
should the Minnesota DOT choose to modify the software further, many
features that are as yet unexplored will be more easily implementable
as the MEPDG database of projects will not need to be rerun.
Reliability Analysis
and As-Built Variation
The developed software has the option of conducting reliability analy-
sis with the default MEPDG reliability analysis. In this case, the crack-
ing level, CRK, for a specified reliability level p is determined with the
closed-form equation used by the MEPDG (11):
CRK = CRK mean + STD meas Z p (4)
where
STD meas = − 0.00172 CRK 2 + 0.3447 CRK + 4.6772 (5)
CRKmean = cracking predicted by using the deterministic model
with mean inputs (corresponding to 50% reliability),
STDmeas = standard deviation of cracking corresponding to crack-
ing predicted with the deterministic model with mean
inputs, and
28
Zp = standardized normal deviate (mean 0 and standard devi-
ation 1) corresponding to reliability level p.
However, a major deficiency in the MEPDG is that its reliability analy-
sis does not relate the reliability level with variation in key design
inputs (8, 9, 11). In addition, during the course of the rigid design
tool project, the Minnesota DOT reviewed recent research that inves-
tigated thickness variation of in situ Minnesota pavements, its effects
on MEPDG performance predictions, and possible modifications to
the MEPDG reliability analysis to account for that variation (12).
For those reasons, the Minnesota DOT desired an alternative to the
default AASHTO MEPDG reliability analysis. After the research
team presented the results of sensitivity analyses on the advantages
and disadvantages of available alternatives, the agency selected a
simple Monte Carlo simulation that resembles the reliability analysis
used by MnPAVE, the Minnesota DOT’s M-E design tool for flexible
pavements.
Hence, the research team developed and implemented a Monte Carlo
simulation that was implemented in the rigid design tool in a manner
similar to its implementation in MnPAVE, in which the controlling
distress for reliability was the predicted transverse cracking, and the
varied parameters were concrete thickness and modulus of rupture. The
recommended design thickness was then the thickness value associ-
ated with cracking levels (at the specified reliability level) that met the
performance criteria. By default, the Monte Carlo simulation reliability
analysis assumed values based on internal Minnesota DOT data: flex-
ural strength of 650 psi, CV of flexural strength of 8.61%, CV of slab
thickness of 4.43%, and reliability and performance levels as indicated
in Table 2. However, these inputs in the developed program can be
modified by authorized users.
Figure 2 is a comparison of recommended design thicknesses for a
single project subjected to varying traffic loads by using the MEPDG
default reliability analysis and the Monte Carlo simulation–based
Design Thickness (in.)
Number of Trucks Over Service Life
FIGURE 2   Comparison of MEPDG default reliability analysis and Monte Carlo–based reliability analysis for various
levels of traffic on sample project.
Transportation Research Record 2524
analysis developed for this project. (The specified project here is
located in the metro district and has a widened outer lane, tied PCC
shoulder, and 15-ft joint spacing. All cases assume a performance
criterion of 6.5% cracked slabs at 97.5% reliability. All other values,
including as-built CVs and modulus of rupture, are defaults as indi-
cated elsewhere.) Figure 2 illustrates that the two reliability methods
are similar. For projects with lighter traffic, the MEPDG method is
slightly more conservative but not to an extent that would likely show
in a final design (as the difference is at most roughly one-tenth of
an inch). For more heavily trafficked projects, however, the differ-
ence between the methods becomes more apparent; in those cases,
the Monte Carlo–based analysis is more conservative.
As noted previously, the Monte Carlo–based reliability analysis is
not a replacement of the MEPDG default, but rather an alternative
intended to allow state and local engineers to account for variation in
as-built thickness and modulus of rupture. Hence, the differences in
the design thickness result between the two reliability methods are
not a source of concern, as the MnPCC-ME design tool is intended
as a simple first step in the design process. It is hoped that the
availability of these two methods will help to better address early
design concerns, most notably in allowing designers to quantify
the effect of as-built variation on pavement performance with the
Monte Carlo–based analysis.
Variability in As-Built Thickness
and Modulus of Rupture
The research team consulted with members of the Minnesota
DOT Concrete Design Office to acquire data that could be used
to develop a CV for as-built concrete thickness and for concrete
modulus of rupture. Table 4 and Figure 3 summarize the statistical
Tompkins, Johanneck, and Khazanovich 29

TABLE 4   Summary of Statistical Analysis Conducted • Portability required. The software is a 32-bit, Windows-
by Research Team on Minnesota DOT As-Built Core Data compatible program, which itself is a self-contained executable file.
This file can be stored and run from any location on a user’s 32-bit or
Project Number of Mean Coefficient
HPCC (in.) Projects Core of Variation (%)
64-bit Windows installation.
• No installation required. The program requires no installation
6 to 7.5  9 448 7.34 to run, and it makes no changes to the Windows registry. The program
8 to 10 35 2,507 4.58 file can be e-mailed, stored on (and run from) a USB drive or other data
10.5+ 18 1,430 2.67 storage device, and used anywhere. This feature goes hand in hand with
Overall 62 4,385 4.43 its portability.
• User clicks limited to design. User interaction (through so-called
clicks) should be limited to opening the program, changing inputs as
required, and clicking “Run” to return a design thickness. The program
analyses conducted on data sets for as-built core thicknesses and returns the thickness result in an instant.
beam flexural strength tests. For the beam testing, the Minne- • Design summary easy to read. On the return of a design thickness
sota DOT assessed 7,592 beams on 42 projects. The mean CV in value, the program also outputs an easy-to-read file summarizing all
flexural strength for those beams was 8.61%. Access to the data project inputs and the resulting design thickness.
summarized in Table 4 and Figure 3 was particularly important
to the project. Should other agencies pursue alternative reliability The goal is that a state or local engineer should be able to take a project
analyses to account for the effects of as-built variation on perfor- planned construction report and quickly estimate the design thickness
mance, the research team recommends the use of a similar data given information from that report. The Minnesota DOT conducted
set, in which a sufficient number of samples (beams and cores) extensive testing of the software, through many revisions, to ensure
are available for analysis. a straightforward design process with the use of the software. If any
inputs requiring special authorization are modified, the project report
clearly states those changes.
Software Implementation

The final M-E design procedure developed by the Minnesota DOT
was named MnPCC-ME. The MnPCC-ME software was created
with three design goals in mind: the software should be portable, it
should not require installation, and it should limit user interaction to
changing pavement design inputs and obtaining a design thickness:
Program Overview
On opening, by default the program will display the Main tab, illus-
trated in Figure 4. All other tabs in the program interface, while
useful, are unnecessary to complete a project run. The Main tab

0.9

0.8

0.7
Percentage of Test

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
Median = 664.6
575: 6%
0.2
600: 14%
625: 27%
0.1 650: 44%
675: 60%
0
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
28-Day Values

FIGURE 3   Distribution of means for all strength beam data as reported by the Minnesota DOT.
30
FIGURE 4   MnPCC-ME Main input tab.
contains all intended design parameters for a given project, and the
fields can be completed easily and the project run quickly to imme-
diately obtain a design thickness. The software was designed so that
it can be used without the need to “learn” the program, but rather
can be picked up and put to use immediately.
As noted previously, certain project inputs are restricted to use just
by the engineers in the Minnesota DOT Office of Materials and Road
Research. The tab corresponding to the protected inputs (labeled
(a)
FIGURE 5   MnPCC-ME tabs: (a) defaults (advanced inputs for research use only) and (b) user guide.
Transportation Research Record 2524
“Defaults”) is password protected to prevent engineers from acciden-
tally modifying these values. This tab and its inputs are illustrated
in Figure 5. In addition, Figure 5 illustrates a tab corresponding to a
simple user guide, which is provided to users in the form of a portable
document format (PDF) file embedded in the software executable file.
This PDF file is opened by the software on user prompting, and it is
the only aspect of the software that requires external programs (in this
case, a program capable of reading PDF files).
(b)
Tompkins, Johanneck, and Khazanovich
FIGURE 6   Screenshot of example MnPCC-ME project summary file.
Finally, all projects created in MnPCC-ME result in the creation
of a simple project summary file on clicking “Run.” The created
summary file is in rich-text format and able to be read by any word
processing program or simple text editing program, including the
built-in text editor in Microsoft Windows. An illustration of a project
summary file is provided in Figure 6.
Implementation and Future Work
The Minnesota DOT began distributing the MnPCC-ME design tool
to state and local engineers in the spring of 2014. The tool was used
for the design of multiple projects that use state funds for construc-
tion. The introduction of MnPCC-ME indirectly facilitates the imple-
mentation of the AASHTO M-E design procedure into the routine
Minnesota rigid pavement design.
The MnPCC-ME design tool, on its own, provides many advan-
tages for the Minnesota DOT going into the future. As demon-
strated above, the JPCP cracking model can be recalibrated through
MnPCC-ME, and future calibration conducted by the Minnesota
DOT can address either the MEPDG or the MnPCC-ME directly.
In addition, the adoption of Monte Carlo–based reliability analy-
sis for variation in thickness and modulus of rupture provides the
Minnesota DOT with new opportunities in pavement design. One
important opportunity is the ability to adopt a performance-related
specification for paving, given that the design can now directly
control the quality of measures such as CV.
However, there are current limitations to MnPCC-ME that the Min-
nesota DOT may address in the future. These limitations include the
incorporation of a faulting performance, roughness (IRI) criteria, or
both; both could be accommodated by the procedure by considering
differential energy for faulting in the same manner as is currently con-
ducted with damage and transverse cracking. Once faulting and crack-
31
ing are calculated, a roughness calculation could be conducted in the
same manner as the MEPDG.
Another limitation, as noted previously, is that the design process
is straightforward and involves as few user clicks as possible to
obtain a result. However, this process could be further streamlined
with the agency’s planned construction project reports; doing so
would prove particularly beneficial in determining an appropriate
traffic axle load spectra.
Finally, other DOTs may look to this project and see additional
opportunities to expand this concept should they desire a similar
procedure. For example, some influential inputs have been excluded
because of the complexity that they present. The PCC thermal coef-
ficient of expansion is one such parameter. While that parameter is
known to be influential, the Minnesota DOT excluded it from consid­
eration to simplify the design process. Future design procedures sim-
ilar to MnPCC-ME could include it or other influential parameters
similar to it if those parameters are found to be especially important,
perhaps as a result of locally available materials or simply an agency’s
design preferences.
Conclusions
As has been the case for other transportation agencies, the Minnesota
DOT wanted to modernize its rigid pavement design without adopting
the complications that accompanied other M-E procedures (e.g., soft-
ware license costs, lack of documentation, and design input parame-
ters that can intimidate inexperienced engineers). To address that need,
the Minnesota DOT commissioned the development of MnPCC-ME,
with the following benefits:
• The software is portable, accessible, and produces results
instantaneously.
• The software requires that users modify only critical input
parameters.
• The project database of performance predictions matches MEPDG
performance predictions for the same input parameters.
• The software includes a Monte Carlo–based reliability analysis
that accounts for variation in flexural strength and slab thickness in
addition to the MEPDG reliability analysis.
These features facilitated the adoption rate of the AASHTO M-E
procedure in Minnesota.
Although this tool was developed specifically for Minnesota con-
ditions, the process described in this paper can be easily adopted
to the local experience of other transportation agencies. While this
particular project used MEPDG Version 1.1, it could be replicated
for any other M-E design procedure; likewise, it could also be repli-
cated for flexible pavements, overlays, and continuously reinforced
concrete pavement projects instead of only JPCP projects for which-
ever climates correspond to a given agency. Finally, the resulting
procedure will be entirely within the agency’s control to modify or
update, should needs arise.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support and assistance of the Minnesota
Department of Transportation. In particular, the authors appreciate
the efforts of the research project’s technical advisory panel: Curt
Turgeon, Maureen Jensen, Tim Anderson, Bruce Tanquist, Steve
 32
Henrichs, Shongtao Dai, Tom Burnham, Bernard Izevbekhai, Maria
Masten, and Matt Zeller.
References
 1. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. AASHTO, Washington, D.C.,
1993.
  2. Burnham, T. R., and W. M. Pirkl. Application of Empirical and Mecha-
nistic–Empirical Pavement Design Procedures to MnROAD Concrete
Pavement Test Sections. Report MN-RC-1997-12. Minnesota Depart-
ment of Transportation, Saint Paul, 1997.
  3. Darter, M., L. Khazanovich, M. Snyder, S. Rao, and J. Hallin. Develop-
ment and Calibration of a Mechanistic Design Procedure for Jointed Plain
Concrete Pavements. Proc., 7th International Conference on Concrete
Pavement, Lake Buena Vista, Fla., Sept. 9–13, 2001, pp. 113–132.
  4. Minnesota Department of Transportation. MnPAVE Flexible, Version
6.304 (software). http://www.dot.state.mn.us/app/mnpave/. Accessed
June 2, 2014.
  5. AASHTO. Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide, Version 1.1
(software). http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/home
.htm. Accessed Aug. 31, 2009.
  6. Yut, I., S. Husein, C. Turgeon, and L. Khazanovich. Adaptation of
the 2002 Guide for the Design of Minnesota Low-Volume Portland
Cement Concrete Pavements. Report 2007-23. Minnesota Department
of Transportation, Saint Paul, 2007.
View publication stats
Transportation Research Record 2524
  7. Velasquez, V., K. Hoegh, I. Yut, N. Funk, G. Cochran, M. Marasteanu, and
L. Khazanovich. Implementation of the MEPDG for New and Rehabili-
tated Pavement Structures for Design of Concrete and Asphalt Pavements
in Minnesota. Report 2009-06. Minnesota Department of Transportation,
Saint Paul, 2009.
 8. Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement Design Guide, Interim Edition: A
Manual of Practice. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2008.
  9. ARA, Inc. ERES Consultants Division. Guide for Mechanistic–Empirical
Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. Final report, NCHRP
Project 1-37A. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2004. http://www.trb.org/mepdg/guide.htm.
10. Tompkins, D., L. Johanneck, M. Jensen, and L. Khazanovich. A Direct
Method for Accounting for Local Weigh-in-Motion Traffic Data in a
Mechanistic–Empirical Design Procedure for Rigid Pavements. Pre-
sented at 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 2014.
11. Darter, M., L. Khazanovich, T. Yu, and J. Mallela. Reliability Analysis
of Cracking and Faulting Prediction in the New Mechanistic–Empirical
Pavement Design Procedure. In Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1936, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005,
pp. 150–160.
12. Vancura, M. E. Evaluation of In-Situ Variability of Concrete Pavement
Characteristics and Their Effect on Performance. PhD dissertation.
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 2013.
The Standing Committee on Rigid Pavement Design peer-reviewed this paper.